G C D MOTORS Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In these two petitions filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the petitioner is praying for quashing of registration of case in Crime No.8/2018 by ISD Police Station, Bengaluru for offence punishable under Section 20 of the Private Security Agencies (Regulation) Act, 2005 (for short, the Act ).

(2.) Isd Police, Bengaluru have registered the case in Crime No.8/2018 against the petitioner-Rohit R Deshpande on the allegation that he is running two showrooms in Belagavi and he had appointed security guards without taking license/permit under the provisions of the Private Security Agencies (Regulation) Act, 2005. Before registering the said case on 20.1.2018, the Police Inspector, ISD, Belagavi had issued notice dated 13.10.2017 calling upon the petitioner to submit some particulars in a form. The information sought under the said notice dated 13.10.2017 pertained to name of the Chief Security Officer, his address, phone number and details of the uniform, cadre, security staff engaged by the petitioner and details of the security agency from which the said security personnel were drawn by him. He submitted his reply dated 31.10.2017 to the Police Inspector, ISD, Belagavi furnishing certain particulars. Apparently, the Police Inspector ISD Police Station was not satisfied with the same and proceeded to register the case against the petitioner for offence punishable under Section 20 of the Act.

(3.) Sri. Mrutyunjaya Tata Bangi, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is running two showrooms in Belagavi and he has employed his own staff and among such staff employed by him, some of them were assigned exclusively to perform security duty and he has provided certain uniforms to them. He submits that this is not a case where the petitioner himselfis running the business of security agency and therefore, the provisions under the Act is not at all applicable to his business and FIR registered against the petitioner is wholly unfounded. He further submits that in the reply submitted by the petitioner on 31.10.2017, it is clearly stated by the petitioner that he had appointed six persons named in the complaint and the petitioner was paying PF and ESI etc. on their accounts and he was paying salary to those six persons himself. Therefore, he submits that the complaint itselfis misconceived besides, illegal and same is liable to be set-aside.